Why, if it is true that Mary was “TOTALLY” irrelevant to the teaching of the Apostles, is there so much about her in the gospels? Everything in the gospels was TRADITION for decades before it was written down.
And you have missed my point: I pointed to the absence of any tradition regarding a TOMB or RELICS. I didn’t say there was an absence of tradition regarding MARY. As I pointed out: If there WERE no tradition about Mary in the early Church, she wouldn’t be mentioned in the gospels.
You are so eager to make a snarky retort, you aren’t even reading the posts you respond to.
You mean like this?
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Nay rather, (Greek Menounge: nay surely, nay rather) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
>> And you have missed my point: I pointed to the absence of any tradition regarding a TOMB or RELICS<<
Oh I got your point. I simply pointed out the absence is due to it being of no importance.
>> You are so eager to make a snarky retort, you aren’t even reading the posts you respond to.<<
What you consider snarky are simply facts that show the RCC to be in error.